You focus a lot here on asking whether the site is choosing weird people to ask you about. But I wonder about how the site is describing these people. That is, there is no uniform way to describe people here: in question one, the first descriptor is about faith in politicians, in question two it is general party affiliation, in three immigration. Are you sure the site isn't made so as to describe these people in ways that will lead you astray so as to lead you to a conclusion based on that?
Yeah, this is a good point. I had the impression for some reason that it also randomised the variables chosen to ask about, but you could be right about this.
While from a statistical perspective it makes the accomplishment much easier ("for most voters there exists _some subset_ of their views that is contradictory" as opposed to "for most voters all their views..." or "a particular subset" or "a random subset...."), I think that most people haven't internalized this point: that it is _incredibly common_ for voters to have a completely wacky subset of views that no one would ever guess just from party affiliation or from any one political fact about them. So even though it become statistically almost trivial, it is still a useful insight to talk about given that most people wouldn't realize it. (I probably wouldn't have guessed the degree to which it is true)
I went to the site and got the exact same first question. Which makes me think there's only a small set of questions - and then that makes me think they're cherry-picked to make a particular point.
Or maybe not. I don't have any trouble believing that people don't line up like this.
>He thinks the UK should take in many more Ukrainian refugees, but has been complaining about refugees from other countries coming in from Calais for months.
I'm confused by the example that you give: "he’s anti-NATO and supports the (very left-wing) Stop the War Coalition, but votes Conservative and likes Boris Johnson. He thinks the UK should take in many more Ukrainian refugees, but has been complaining about refugees from other countries coming in from Calais for months." These views are absolutely coherent: isolationism and racism are absolutely standard views within the wider set of Conservative voters, and he very likely doesn't know how left-wing StWC is because they go out of their way to conceal it.
I mean, I do say that it's very possible to construct a narrative where his views are completely coherent. But in this case I don't think these views are coherent - he is aware that StWC are left-wing (and I'm not sure they do go out of their way to conceal it? Their website's About page says 'We are committed to supporting Palestinian rights, opposing racism and Islamophobia, and to the defence of civil liberties' and 'We have been one of the main organisers of the massive protests against Donald Trump when he has visited Britain', and the speaker most frequently at their rallies is Jeremy Corbyn. I think basically everyone knows that they're left-wing).
Everyone knows that they're left-wing, but very few people know that they began as cover for the hard left (specifically originating from the Trotskyist SWP) unless they do additional research, which I assume your friend's father has not. What that means is that casual observers look at a "Stop the War Coalition" and think, yes, I agree that the war should stop - it doesn't signal their deep commitment to Trotskyism, so he could support them while still being a conservative. And I'm not sure why you still think his views are incoherent, when I explained pretty clearly how they are coherent - conservatives are frequently anti-interventionist, wary of foreign coalitions, and racist? My point was that it puzzles me that you think this is incoherent, when to me it seems very obviously coherent.
I've re-read the blog post, and I'm now not sure what overall point you're trying to make. When you say "coherent", do you you mean "agreeing with the entire policy package of one of the UK's small number of viable political parties"?
Most people underestimate the extent to which the average person holds political views that are uncorrelated with each other among the electorate. A substantial percentage (>20%) of the people who hold these uncorrelated views don't have a model of the world that explain why they simultaneously hold both views.
I find your first example of one of your friends fathers interesting, anti war, anti nato, would they be pro or anti UN? Depending on how they view war, they may see the UN as a mere hostility? I don't have a firm grasp of UK politics, though in Canada we took in Ukrainian refugees in the more recent past, perhaps your friends father met some from that point in time? Feel life experience can vary most of the votes up more then say sex or simply age itself, though you might have some events in age brackets that are bigger and may be shared more widely, curious stuff. Would try to study UK parties further before I give such a game a try, an interesting exploration.
You focus a lot here on asking whether the site is choosing weird people to ask you about. But I wonder about how the site is describing these people. That is, there is no uniform way to describe people here: in question one, the first descriptor is about faith in politicians, in question two it is general party affiliation, in three immigration. Are you sure the site isn't made so as to describe these people in ways that will lead you astray so as to lead you to a conclusion based on that?
Yeah, this is a good point. I had the impression for some reason that it also randomised the variables chosen to ask about, but you could be right about this.
While from a statistical perspective it makes the accomplishment much easier ("for most voters there exists _some subset_ of their views that is contradictory" as opposed to "for most voters all their views..." or "a particular subset" or "a random subset...."), I think that most people haven't internalized this point: that it is _incredibly common_ for voters to have a completely wacky subset of views that no one would ever guess just from party affiliation or from any one political fact about them. So even though it become statistically almost trivial, it is still a useful insight to talk about given that most people wouldn't realize it. (I probably wouldn't have guessed the degree to which it is true)
I went to the site and got the exact same first question. Which makes me think there's only a small set of questions - and then that makes me think they're cherry-picked to make a particular point.
Or maybe not. I don't have any trouble believing that people don't line up like this.
>He thinks the UK should take in many more Ukrainian refugees, but has been complaining about refugees from other countries coming in from Calais for months.
I don't think this is incoherent
I'm confused by the example that you give: "he’s anti-NATO and supports the (very left-wing) Stop the War Coalition, but votes Conservative and likes Boris Johnson. He thinks the UK should take in many more Ukrainian refugees, but has been complaining about refugees from other countries coming in from Calais for months." These views are absolutely coherent: isolationism and racism are absolutely standard views within the wider set of Conservative voters, and he very likely doesn't know how left-wing StWC is because they go out of their way to conceal it.
I mean, I do say that it's very possible to construct a narrative where his views are completely coherent. But in this case I don't think these views are coherent - he is aware that StWC are left-wing (and I'm not sure they do go out of their way to conceal it? Their website's About page says 'We are committed to supporting Palestinian rights, opposing racism and Islamophobia, and to the defence of civil liberties' and 'We have been one of the main organisers of the massive protests against Donald Trump when he has visited Britain', and the speaker most frequently at their rallies is Jeremy Corbyn. I think basically everyone knows that they're left-wing).
Everyone knows that they're left-wing, but very few people know that they began as cover for the hard left (specifically originating from the Trotskyist SWP) unless they do additional research, which I assume your friend's father has not. What that means is that casual observers look at a "Stop the War Coalition" and think, yes, I agree that the war should stop - it doesn't signal their deep commitment to Trotskyism, so he could support them while still being a conservative. And I'm not sure why you still think his views are incoherent, when I explained pretty clearly how they are coherent - conservatives are frequently anti-interventionist, wary of foreign coalitions, and racist? My point was that it puzzles me that you think this is incoherent, when to me it seems very obviously coherent.
What percentage of people who have been on marches with the StWC do you imagine would also say they were very supportive of Boris Johnson?
I've re-read the blog post, and I'm now not sure what overall point you're trying to make. When you say "coherent", do you you mean "agreeing with the entire policy package of one of the UK's small number of viable political parties"?
Most people underestimate the extent to which the average person holds political views that are uncorrelated with each other among the electorate. A substantial percentage (>20%) of the people who hold these uncorrelated views don't have a model of the world that explain why they simultaneously hold both views.
I find your first example of one of your friends fathers interesting, anti war, anti nato, would they be pro or anti UN? Depending on how they view war, they may see the UN as a mere hostility? I don't have a firm grasp of UK politics, though in Canada we took in Ukrainian refugees in the more recent past, perhaps your friends father met some from that point in time? Feel life experience can vary most of the votes up more then say sex or simply age itself, though you might have some events in age brackets that are bigger and may be shared more widely, curious stuff. Would try to study UK parties further before I give such a game a try, an interesting exploration.